Spyderman1

Welcome!

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Spyderman1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Zach4636 ^Talk 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Maserati Coupé / Spyder

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Why not improve the Maserati Coupé article with the additional material? Maserati Spyder already redirects to that article, not this one, and the title of this article is awkward. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I changed the title because it more accurately reflects the subject matter and provides equal treatment for both the coupe and spyder. Actually, the spyder was the first of the vehicles, the coupe came out later. Spyderman1 (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see your logic, but think of the person looking for info on the Coupé -- they will search for "Maserati Coupé" not for "Maserati Coupé / Spyder". Similarly for the Spyder. In any event at the moment the Maserati Coupé article is not a redirect and it has some discussion on the talk page that will be a little hard to find if it is redirected to the new article. – ukexpat (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have all versions of Maserati Coupe redirected, with or without the accented é so everyone will get taken there just like they did for Maserati Spyder. I had looked at the discussion page, but the only thing on it of substance was about a mistatement in a prior version that the coupe/spyder was the first Maserati to feature a normally aspirated V8, and this was corrected sometime ago - but no discussion worth maintaining a history of. In any event, perhaps I should have used the "move" function - does that move discussion as well? Spyderman1 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have moved the Maserati Coupe article back to where it belongs. Maserati Coupe / Spyder is a bad title, and is not helpful for those trying to find the page. I'd also suggest fixing all the redirects that you changed, since this now creates incorrect double redirects to the Coupe article.

If you want to improve the Coupe article, do it on its original page, write an entirely different article on a different page then delete through redirection the original. The359 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, all of the photos you uploaded need to be deleted. They are not allowed on Wikipedia because they are not licensed under Creative Commons Share Alike 2.0 (SA-BY-2.0) or Creative Commons Attribution (BY-2.0). The images you uploaded were all under Share Alike Non-Commercial (SA-NC-BY), which we do not allow on Wikipedia. If you want Maserati Coupe images, try [1] or [2]. The359 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I imagine you are correct about the non-commercial Creative Commons. Some of those images (not all as you said) have the non-commercial limitation and so I will have to edit the article to remove those image links. However, I cannot agree with the rest of what you wrote nor what you did. I think the Maserati Coupé / Spyder title is more accurate and will still be immediately reached by anyone through the various redirects. Most people are not going to search for "Maserati Coupé" with the accent, but for "Maserati Coupe" as you typed it so they get there anyway by a redirect. However, the article name is not a major issue with me. What is, though, is that rather than continuing a discussion on it to attempt to achieve consensus, or even moving the new content over under the name you like, you deleted my changes which had taken the article from a substantially incomplete and undocumented state into a completed, significant revision with over 50 unique sources cited for nearly all of its content. Deleting all of that outright does not strike me as a very collaborative approach to improving Wikipedia. Spyderman1 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

On the issue of the article's title, I have reviewed a number of other vehicles that have both a coupe and convertible style and see that the more common naming convention is to use just the coupe only, and so have put my recent changes under the "Maserati Coupé" as a couple of you have suggested. Assuming people don't continue to delete all of the new content I worked hard at including, I may even go back and fix all the links and double re-directs. :) Spyderman1 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The removal of your text was done for two reasons: First, I was not going to judge which version of the article was better. Since the change was so sweeping, it was better to go back to the default and simply ask you to make your changes to the existing article. Second, you actually created a new article, and then altered the original into a redirect. This was a bad move, as it basically eliminated the entire history of the article. The better move would have been to use the Move button to rename the existing article. This not only would have created automatic redirects, but also would have retained the article's history even under the new title. Your version was also not deleted "outright", since one could easily have gotten it back by looking at the history of "Maserati Coupé / Spyder". It was, quite frankly, no more of a bold move then your initial moving and rewritting of the entire article without discussion as a fix.

As for the naming, the use of /, 'and', or other such terms should not be used in titles unless they are in fact part of the actual name. Unfortunately the Maseratis are rather unique in the automotive world, so the only solution is to pick one of the two names and use it, with the other being a redirect, that doesn't matter to me and both could be argued. Combining the two names just simply does not work, however. The359 (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can agree with you on the article name and my moving of the article - in retrospect it is probably better leaving it under its current name. And I can agree that the "Move" button would have been the right approach. It would have saved me some time if I had noticed it before creating the new article. But what I disagree with is your deleting (undoing) my new material from the article proper because you disagree with my approach to adding it. The article as it existed was significantly dormant and was in good measure plagiarized (I found sections of it appeared to be taken verbatim from existing copyrighted articles without any attribution). In rewriting the article, I substantially maintained the information from the original in a non-plagiarizing state to the extent it was correct and verifiable. My point being, that I did not simply throw out previous contributors' work, but included it to the extent appropriate.

You indicated that my rewriting of the article was as bold as your deleting it; perhaps, but (1) Wikipedia encourages contributors to be bold and (2) my "boldness" was in furtherance of improving the article, while yours seemed to be more of knee-jerk reaction to what I did, rather than being in furtherance of filling out this encyclopedia. You yourself said you didn't make any attempt to consider the changes on their merit, and I would suggest that you shouldn't be undoing significant amounts of other people's work without such consideration. For someone who has spent significant time working on improving an article, it seems callous for someone else to just remove it because they didn't think it should have been moved to a new page. Spyderman1 (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article was returned to its original state because, as I said, I was not going to decide which version was worth keeping, especially since they were on two different name spaces. I simply reverted to the default as a safety net, with the recommendation that you edit the current article with your information rather than having me attempt to do it. In no way was I saying that either version was better, I was simply going back to the article that existed before this renaming mess occured.

I was not undoing work that was done, since you technically never made that work on the proper article so as it is. I was simply attempting to fix the name problem without touching the article content. However, in order to do that, your article need to be changed into a redirect, and it was simpler to just revert your change to the original article than attempt to copy and paste.

Not that any of this matters, since this turned out exactly as it should have, with you editing the proper article in the manner necessary after the naming and redirect problems had been corrected by myself.

If you want to take it as wreckless, an attack, insulting, or any other thing, not my fault. I was simply attempting to fix the problem that you created, and have now managed to work out the way it should be. The359 (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

C'mon, is copying and pasting so difficult that you have to "attempt" it? You couldn't be bothered for a couple extra clicks to help out someone trying to improve wikipedia content?

And I didn't take it as an attack or feel insulted, but it was somewhat offensive given the alternatives available - copying and pasting, or discussion like another user did. Well, I guess I've made my point. No acknowledgement that perhaps you could have handled it in a bit of a more friendly, cooperative manner? Spyderman1 (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Redirect

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, the edit of yours that I undid was probably not vandalism, technically; but in case you didn't see, the edit only left the words #REDIRECT [[Maserati Coupé / Spyder]]. That is why I undid it. Also, I had no way of telling that your intentions were good: I could only see the result. I hope that this clears up any confusion that you had. Zach4636 ^Talk 00:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

File:JimsAnimation1.gif listed for deletion

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:JimsAnimation1.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Possibly unfree File:2006 Maserati Coupe GT interior.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2006 Maserati Coupe GT interior.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply